Attorneys going in-house

[Skipper 6,199]

2 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Tell that to the corporate bond associates representing lead underwriters on 30 offerings in 2021.

I've go to say I have no idea what that work entails.  But it sounds awful.

[Amos Moses 795]

Been in-house for almost 15 years.  I’m way behind on my billable hours.

[alincoln 2,385]

Just now, Skipper said:

I've go to say I have no idea what that work entails.  But it sounds awful.

I honestly don't know how they do it.  We represent issuers on a few offerings a year and every time we close one I feel sorry for those Wall St associates who do nothing but those bond offerings over and over and over again while watching the partners walk home with $5 million a year.  

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

36 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Funny story regarding big firm fees and staffing:

A few years ago I had a case against my old firm in a state court lawsuit in Travis County.  I used to work with two of the partners on the case when I was just a baby attorney at the firm.  They're great guys and they helped make my first few years of practice out of law school a lot of fun.  We got along great in the case, and they still refer me work from time to time.  In that case, their client prevailed on most of the issues after a bench trial, so we head to a post-trial proceeding for the attorney's fees claim.

They submit their motion for fees with attached billing statements and my jaw drops.  It had been well over 10 years since I'd been with that firm, so I really didn't have a sense of what they were charging at the time (this was in 2012).  The senior partner was billing at almost $800, and a third or fourth-year associate on the case was charging almost double my rate as a 12-year attorney.  I've never before taken opposing counsel to task on a fee claim, but we had no choice with the rates and amount we were seeing, and we had an full evidentiary hearing on fees.  It made for fun cross-examination -- there was even a billing entry in the fee claim for charging an associate's time just to attend a CLE at which our trial judge was the speaker!  I felt a little bad going after my former colleagues on fees, so we went pretty easy on opposing counsel all things considered. 

Still, our trial judge was so offended by the hourly rates, the over-staffing, and the amount of work billed that he awarded zero fees.  Nada.

 

Had the same experience litigating against my old firm and the partner I did the most work for around 2016.  It was for a Big Law firm a relatively small litigation case -- max liability would have been around $10 million and was probably realistically about half that.  On a case like that when I was there, they would have one partner and one associate.

They had like 6 attorneys on the case.  They spent 40 hours of attorney time on witness prep for a deposition we agreed to limit to 2 hours of testimony (the case entirely turned on a very narrow issue of contract interpretation).  I was shocked then they produced their fee statements.  Things had changed a lot since I left in 2010.  The rates and the overbilling of hours was something I had never seen when I worked there.  I think a lot of big firms litigation departments are hurting.  There aren't a lot of cases that justify the billing rates but they have to charge them to at least have to try and keep close to what the corporate transaction guys charge.  We had over 100 litigators in our Houston office when I was there.  I think they have around 40 now.

[We’reTexas 1,473]

11 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Tell that to the corporate bond associates representing lead underwriters on 30 offerings in 2021.

I think issuer’s side associates would gladly tell UW counsel that 🙂

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

36 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Funny story regarding big firm fees and staffing:

A few years ago I had a case against my old firm in a state court lawsuit in Travis County.  I used to work with two of the partners on the case when I was just a baby attorney at the firm.  They're great guys and they helped make my first few years of practice out of law school a lot of fun.  We got along great in the case, and they still refer me work from time to time.  In that case, their client prevailed on most of the issues after a bench trial, so we head to a post-trial proceeding for the attorney's fees claim.

They submit their motion for fees with attached billing statements and my jaw drops.  It had been well over 10 years since I'd been with that firm, so I really didn't have a sense of what they were charging at the time (this was in 2012).  The senior partner was billing at almost $800, and a third or fourth-year associate on the case was charging almost double my rate as a 12-year attorney.  I've never before taken opposing counsel to task on a fee claim, but we had no choice with the rates and amount we were seeing, and we had an full evidentiary hearing on fees.  It made for fun cross-examination -- there was even a billing entry in the fee claim for charging an associate's time just to attend a CLE at which our trial judge was the speaker!  I felt a little bad going after my former colleagues on fees, so we went pretty easy on opposing counsel all things considered. 

Still, our trial judge was so offended by the hourly rates, the over-staffing, and the amount of work billed that he awarded zero fees.  Nada.

 

Had the same experience litigating against my old firm and the partner I did the most work for around 2016.  It was for a Big Law firm a relatively small litigation case -- max liability would have been around $10 million and was probably realistically about half that.  On a case like that when I was there, they would have one partner and one associate.

They had like 6 attorneys on the case.  They spent 40 hours of attorney time on witness prep for a deposition we agreed to limit to 2 hours of testimony (the case entirely turned on a very narrow issue of contract interpretation).  I was shocked then they produced their fee statements.  Things had changed a lot since I left in 2010.  The rates and the overbilling of hours was something I had never seen when I worked there.  I think a lot of big firms litigation departments are hurting.  There aren't a lot of cases that justify the billing rates but they have to charge them to at least have to try and keep close to what the corporate transaction guys charge.  We had over 100 litigators in our Houston office when I was there.  I think they have around 40 now.

[troph 24,905]

29 minutes ago, alincoln said:

Tell that to the corporate bond associates representing lead underwriters on 30 offerings in 2021.

 

27 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I've go to say I have no idea what that work entails.  But it sounds awful.

I did this work as half my practice from 2002-2008 and it was great work. Think (loosely) IPOs but bonds instead of stock.  Public deals, disclosure, underlying legal transaction is the issuer buys the debt - mortgages, student loans, car loans, whatever, puts them in a trust and issues bonds (i.e. notes) to the market through Goldman or Bank of America or whomever.  Rating agencies, 3-4 law firms involved. Usually collaborative and a ton of work that comes in huge chunks. We also did hospital finance which was very similar but not as corporate. I billed 2200 regularly because of the bond work.

I spent my other half of my time in traditional corporate - M&A, securities, complex contracts, routine employment contracts and everything in between. 

I became very accustom to the variation in work and enjoyed the security of being a profit center not a cost center so never found in house appealing. I could do it now but I’m far enough along that I’ve spilled over the edge beyond being a lawyer with good business sense to a business woman with good lawyer skills and instincts. So now I’d find the role too limiting.  And truth be told I like the networking of being outside hunting for my next kill. 
 

 

[South Austin 52,600]

51 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Ouch! 

Yeah, I wouldn't want to explain to my client that the judge determined that none of the fees I had charged it were reasonable and necessary.

Both parties had cross-appeals, including the judge's award of no fees.  But the case settled on appeal, both of our respective clients made a ton of money on the project, and the trial lawyers got paid.  Happy endings all around.

[Cap33 393]

I've been in-house for over 10 years, and I love it. Way less stress, and I still have a hand in litigation managing outside counsel. Health insurance and other benefits are way better, and most days, I leave work at work and get home to the family by dinnertime. 

Other than going to a stable company, my biggest piece of advice is to really look at the legal department you're joining.  Make sure you like the people you'll be working with, especially if it's a smaller group without a lot of turnover. When I was in private practice, my firms were big enough that I found good work friends within the practice group that I could bounce things off of, grab drinks, or just shoot the shit when we needed a break. When I moved in house, I figured out real quick that the other lawyers weren't people I would have gravitated towards at my firm, and only one could talk football on Mondays. I like everyone well enough, and the work is challenging and fun, so overall it's been worth it.  

[troph 24,905]

to the question at hand, I'd absolutely consider an in-house job if I had stayed 15 years at Big Law or any firm really that had demanding billable hours.  that's an easy ask and answer.  To South Austin's point, it only gets hard to answer when you've found another path to balance.

[Saint Austin 745]

I loved going in-house, but the pay's usually as good as you'll make in private practice, which is why I reluctantly left in-house a few years ago.

[South Austin 52,600]

8 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

I loved going in-house, but the pay's usually as good as you'll make in private practice, which is why I reluctantly left in-house a few years ago.

If you loved being in-house and the pay was roughly the same, then why did you go back to the billable world (assuming you're at a private practice that bills your time)?

[Saint Austin 745]

Just now, South Austin said:

If you loved being in-house and the pay was roughly the same, then why did you go back to the billable world (assuming you're at a private practice that bills your time)?

Because the pay wasn't roughly the same. I got a 60% raise going back to private practice. But even then, I had frank discussions with the boss and associates about how doable it was to make my billable hours, and it honestly hasn't been bad. It all depends on the right spot though.

[troph 24,905]

58 minutes ago, South Austin said:

If you loved being in-house and the pay was roughly the same, then why did you go back to the billable world (assuming you're at a private practice that bills your time)?

 

55 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

Because the pay wasn't roughly the same. I got a 60% raise going back to private practice. But even then, I had frank discussions with the boss and associates about how doable it was to make my billable hours, and it honestly hasn't been bad. It all depends on the right spot though.

typo, good help is hard to find.

[Saint Austin 745]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

 

typo, good help is hard to find.

Dammit. My bad. "the pay's usually not as good as you'll make in private practice,"

[South Austin 52,600]

I see.  For a 60% pay raise I can see sucking it up and going back to billing.

[RollLeft 5,045]

There should be an i'm an attorney, this is what i do thread.  Just sayin.  

[South Austin 52,600]

Just now, RollLeft said:

There should be an i'm an attorney, this is what i do thread.  Just sayin.  

Everybody on Surly would post on that thread.

[CTC2 2,798]

Litigated for 16 years.  Some of that with a national plaintiffs firm.  Tried cases all over the country and made really good money.  Had young children and realized I was missing out on quite a bit.  Went in house as general counsel for a company who was large and successful but had never had a GC prior to me.

Some things I have learned:

Businessmen look at lawyers as an expense and as the people who will always tell them "no".  Your new employer will not appreciate you as much as your individual clients may have.  Welcome to the world of being a "necessary evil".  If you currently get a lot of juice from your current job, going in house will make you feel like you are wasting your life for less money.  If you really don't care about getting something out of your job and you value your free time, I say go for it.  If not, think twice.